Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions by T. W. Doane

words: "_The Lord be with you._" These Eleusinian Mysteries were accompanied with various rites, expressive of the purity and self-denial of the worshiper, and were therefore considered to be an expiation of past sins, and to place the initiated under the special protection of the awful and potent goddess who presided over them.[310:8] These _mysteries_ were, as we have said, also celebrated in honor of _Bacchus_ as well as _Ceres_. A consecrated cup of wine was handed around after supper, called the "Cup of the Agathodaemon"--the Good Divinity.[311:1] Throughout the whole ceremony, the name of the _Lord_ was many times repeated, and his brightness or glory not only exhibited to the eye by the rays which surrounded his name (or his monogram, I. H. S.), but was made the peculiar theme or subject of their triumphant exultation.[311:2] The mystical wine and bread were used during the Mysteries of _Adonis_, the Lord and Saviour.[311:3] In fact, the communion of bread and wine was used in the worship of nearly every important deity.[311:4] The rites of _Bacchus_ were celebrated in the British Islands in heathen times,[311:5] and so were those of _Mithra_, which were spread over Gaul and Great Britain.[311:6] We therefore find that the ancient _Druids_ offered the sacrament of bread and wine, during which ceremony they were dressed in white robes,[311:7] just as the Egyptian priests of Isis were in the habit of dressing, and as the priests of many Christian sects dress at the present day. Among some negro tribes in Africa there is a belief that "on eating and drinking consecrated food they eat and drink the god himself."[311:8] The ancient _Mexicans_ celebrated the mysterious sacrament of the Eucharist, called the "most holy supper," during which they ate the flesh of their god. The bread used at their Eucharist was made of _corn_ meal, which they mixed with _blood_, instead of wine. This was _consecrated_ by the priest, and given to the people, who ate it with humility and penitence, _as the flesh of their god_.[311:9] Lord Kingsborough, in his "_Mexican Antiquities_," speaks of the ancient Mexicans as performing this sacrament; when they made a cake, which they called _Tzoalia_. The high priest blessed it in his manner, after which he broke it into pieces, and put it into certain very clean vessels. He then took a thorn of _maguery_, which resembles a thick needle, with which he took up with the utmost reverence single morsels, _which he put into the mouth of each individual, after the manner of a communion_.[311:10] The writer of the "Explanation of Plates of the _Codex Vaticanus_,"--which are copies of Mexican _hieroglyphics_--says: "I am disposed to believe that these poor people have had the knowledge of our mode of communion, or of the annunciation of the gospel; or perhaps the _devil_, most envious of the honor of God, may have led them into this superstition, in order that by this ceremony he might be adored and served as Christ our Lord."[312:1] The Rev. Father Acosta says: "That which is most admirable in the hatred and presumption of Satan is, that he hath not only counterfeited in idolatry and sacrifice, but also in certain ceremonies, _our Sacraments_, which Jesus Christ our Lord hath instituted and the holy Church doth use, having especially pretended to imitate in some sort the _Sacrament of the Communion_, which is the most high and divine of all others." He then relates how the _Mexicans_ and _Peruvians_, in certain ceremonies, ate the flesh of their god, and called certain morsels of paste, "the flesh and bones of _Vitzilipuzlti_." "After putting themselves in order about these morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing, by means whereof they (the pieces of paste) were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol."[312:2] These facts show that the _Eucharist_ is another piece of Paganism adopted by the Christians. The story of Jesus and his disciples being at supper, where the Master did break bread, may be true, but the statement that he said, "Do this in remembrance of me,"--"this is my body," and "this is my blood," was undoubtedly invented to give authority to the _mystic_ ceremony, which had been borrowed from Paganism. Why should they do this in remembrance of Jesus? Provided he took this supper with his disciples--which the _John_ narrator denies[312:3]--he did not do anything on that occasion new or unusual among Jews. To pronounce the benediction, break the bread, and distribute pieces thereof to the persons at table, was, and is now, a common usage of the Hebrews. Jesus could not have commanded born Jews to do in remembrance of him what they already practiced, and what every religious Jew does to this day. The whole story is evidently a myth, as a perusal of it with the eye of a critic clearly demonstrates. The _Mark_ narrator informs us that Jesus sent two of his disciples to the city, and told them this: "Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the _goodman_ of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room _furnished and prepared_: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover."[313:1] The story of the passover or the last supper, seems to be introduced in this unusual manner to make it manifest that a divine power is interested in, and conducting the whole affair, parallels of which we find in the story of Elieser and Rebecca, where Rebecca is to identify herself in a manner pre-arranged by Elieser with God;[313:2] and also in the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath, where by God's directions a journey is made, and the widow is found.[313:3] It suggests itself to our mind that this style of connecting a supernatural interest with human affairs was not entirely original with the Mark narrator. In this connection it is interesting to note that a man in Jerusalem should have had an unoccupied and _properly_ furnished room just at _that_ time, when two millions of pilgrims sojourned in and around the city. The man, it appears, was not distinguished either for wealth or piety, for his _name_ is not mentioned; he was not present at the supper, and no further reference is made to him. It appears rather that the Mark narrator imagined an ordinary man who had a furnished room to let for such purposes, and would imply that Jesus knew it _prophetically_. He had only to pass in his mind from Elijah to his disciple Elisha, for whom the great woman of Shunem had so richly furnished an upper chamber, to find a like instance.[313:4] _Why should not somebody have furnished also an upper chamber for the Messiah?_ The Matthew narrator's account is free from these embellishments, and simply runs thus: Jesus said to some of his disciples--the number is not given-- "Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and _they_ made ready the passover."[313:5] In this account, no pitcher, no water, no prophecy is mentioned.[313:6] It was many centuries before the genuine heathen doctrine of _Transubstantiation_--a change of the elements of the Eucharist into the _real_ body and blood of Christ Jesus--became a tenet of the Christian faith. This greatest of mysteries was developed gradually. As early as the second century, however, the seeds were planted, when we find Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenæus advancing the opinion, that the mere bread and wine became, in the Eucharist, _something higher_--the earthly, something heavenly--without, however, ceasing to be bread and wine. Though these views were opposed by some eminent individual Christian teachers, yet both among the people and in the ritual of the Church, the miraculous or supernatural view of the Lord's Supper gained ground. After the third century the office of presenting the bread and wine came to be confined to the _ministers_ or _priests_. This practice arose from, and in turn strengthened, the notion which was gaining ground, that in this act of presentation by the priest, a sacrifice, similar to that once offered up in the death of Christ Jesus, though bloodless, was ever anew presented to God. This still deepened the feeling of _mysterious_ significance and importance with which the rite of the Lord's Supper was viewed, and led to that gradually increasing splendor of celebration which took the form of the _Mass_. As in Christ Jesus two distinct natures, the divine and the human, were wonderfully combined, so in the Eucharist there was a corresponding union of the earthly and the heavenly. For a long time there was no formal declaration of the mind of the Church on the _real presence_ of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist. At length a _discussion_ on the point was raised, and the most distinguished men of the time took part in it. One party maintained that "the bread and wine are, in the act of consecration, transformed by the omnipotence of God into the _very body_ of Christ which was once born of Mary, nailed to the cross, and raised from the dead." According to this conception, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the outward form, the taste and the smell; while the other party would only allow that there is _some change_ in the bread and wine themselves, but granted that an actual transformation of their power and efficacy takes place. The greater accordance of the first view with the credulity of the age, its love for the wonderful and magical, the interest of the priesthood to add lustre, in accordance with the heathens, to a rite which enhanced their own office, resulted in the doctrine of Transubstantiation being declared an article of faith of the Christian Church. Transubstantiation, the invisible change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is a tenet that may defy the powers of argument and pleasantry; but instead of consulting the evidence of their senses, of their sight, their feeling, and their taste, the first Protestants were entangled in their own scruples, and awed by the reputed words of Jesus in the institution of the sacrament. Luther maintained a _corporeal_, and Calvin a _real_ presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and the opinion of Zuinglius, that it is no more than a spiritual communion, a simple memorial, has slowly prevailed in the reformed churches.[315:1] Under Edward VI. the reformation was more bold and perfect, but in the fundamental articles of the Church of England, a strong and explicit declaration against the real presence was _obliterated_ in the original copy, to please the people, or the Lutherans, or Queen Elizabeth. At the present day, the Greek and Roman Catholics alone hold to the original doctrine of the _real presence_. Of all the religious observances among heathens, Jews, or Turks, none has been the cause of more hatred, persecution, outrage, and bloodshed, than the Eucharist. Christians persecuted one another like relentless foes, and thousands of Jews were slaughtered on account of the Eucharist and the Host. FOOTNOTES: [305:1] Matt. xxvi. 26. See also, Mark, xiv. 22. [305:2] At the heading of the chapters named in the above note may be seen the words: "Jesus keepeth the Passover (and) _instituteth_ the Lord's Supper." [305:3] According to the Roman Christians, the Eucharist is the natural body and blood of Christ Jesus _verè et realiter_, but the Protestant sophistically explains away these two plain words _verily_ and _indeed_, and by the grossest abuse of language, makes them to mean _spiritually by grace and efficacy_. "In the sacrament of the altar," says the Protestant divine, "is the _natural_ body and blood of Christ _verè et realiter_, verily and indeed, if you take these terms for _spiritually by grace and efficacy_; but if you mean _really and indeed_, so that thereby you would include a lively and movable body under the form of bread and wine, then in that sense it is _not_ Christ's body in the sacrament really and indeed." [305:4] See Inman's Ancient Faiths, vol. ii. p. 203, and Anacalypsis, i. 232. [306:1] "Leur grand Lama célèbre une espèce de sacrifice avec du pain et du vin dont il prend une petite quantité, et distribue le reste aux Lamas presens à cette cérémonie." (Quoted in Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 118.) [306:2] Viscount Amberly's Analysis, p. 46. [306:3] Baring-Gould: Orig. Relig. Belief, vol. i. p. 401. [306:4] See Bonwick's Egyptian Belief, p. 163. [306:5] See Ibid. p. 417. [306:6] See Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 179. [306:7] See Bunsen's Keys of St. Peter, p. 199; Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 60, and Lillie's Buddhism, p. 136. [306:8] See Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 60. [307:1] See Bunsen's Keys of St. Peter, p. 55, and Genesis, xiv. 18, 19. [307:2] St. Jerome says: "Melchizédek in typo Christi panem et vinum obtulit: et mysterium Christianum in Salvatoris sanguine et corpore dedicavit." [307:3] See Bunsen's Angel-Messiah, p. 227. [307:4] See King's Gnostics and their Remains, p. xxv., and Higgins' Anacalypsis, vol. ii. pp. 58, 59. [307:5] Renan's Hibbert Lectures, p. 35. [308:1] In the words of Mr. King: "This expression shows that the notion of blessing or consecrating the elements was _as yet_ unknown to the Christians." [308:2] Apol. 1. ch. lxvi. [308:3] Ibid. [308:4] De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, ch. xl. Tertullian explains this conformity between Christianity and Paganism, by asserting that the devil copied the Christian mysteries. [308:5] "De Tinctione, de oblatione panis, et de imagine resurrectionis, videatur doctiss, de la Cerda ad ea Tertulliani loca ubi de hiscerebus agitur. Gentiles citra Christum, talia celébradant Mithriaca quæ videbantur cum doctrinâ _eucharistæ_ et _resurrectionis_ et aliis ritibus Christianis convenire, quæ fecerunt ex industria ad imitationem Christianismi: unde Tertulliani et Patres aiunt eos talia fecisse, duce diabolo, quo vult esse simia Christi, &c. Volunt itaque eos res suas ita compârasse, ut _Mithræ mysteria essent eucharistiæ Christianæ imago_. Sic Just. Martyr (p. 98), et Tertullianus et Chrysostomus. In suis etiam sacris habebant Mithriaci lavacra (quasi regenerationis) in quibus tingit et ipse (sc. sacerdos) quosdam utique credentes et fideles suos, et expiatoria delictorum de lavacro repromittit et sic adhuc initiat Mithræ." (Hyde: De Relig. Vet. Persian, p. 113.) [308:6] Justin: 1st Apol., ch. lvi. [309:1] Dr. Grabes' Notes on Irenæus, lib. v. c. 2, in Anac., vol. i. p. 60. [309:2] Quoted in Monumental Christianity, p. 370. [309:3] See Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 369. "The Divine Presence called his angel of mercy and said unto him: 'Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark of Tau ({~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER TAU~}, the headless cross) upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that are done in the midst thereof.'" Bunsen: The Angel-Messiah, p. 305. [309:4] They were celebrated every fifth year at _Eleusis_, a town of Attica, from whence their name. [309:5] Taylor's Diegesis, p. 212. [309:6] Müller: Origin of Religion, p. 181. [309:7] "In the _Bacchic_ Mysteries a consecrated cup (of wine) was handed around after supper, called the cup of the _Agathodaemon_." (Cousin: Lec. on Modn. Phil. Quoted in Isis Unveiled, ii. 513. See also, Dunlap's Spirit Hist., p. 217.) [310:1] Eccl. Hist. cent. ii. pt. 2, sec. v. [310:2] Bell's Pantheon, vol. i. p. 282. [310:3] Episcopal Communion Service. [310:4] Bell's Pantheon, vol. i. p. 282. [310:5] Hebrews, x. 22. [310:6] See Taylor's Diegesis, p. 213. [310:7] See Ibid. [310:8] Kenrick's Egypt, vol. i. p. 471. [311:1] See Dunlap's Spirit Hist., p. 217, and Isis Unveiled, vol. ii. p. 513. [311:2] See Taylor's Diegesis, p. 214. [311:3] See Isis Unveiled, vol. ii. p. 139. [311:4] See Ibid. p. 513. [311:5] See Myths of the British Druids, p. 89. [311:6] See Dupuis: Origin of Relig. Belief, p. 238. [311:7] See Myths of the British Druids, p. 280, and Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 376. [311:8] Herbert Spencer: Principles of Sociology, vol. i. p. 299. [311:9] See Monumental Christianity, pp. 390 and 393. [311:10] Mexican Antiquities, vol. vi. p. 220. [312:1] Quoted In Mexican Antiquities, vol. vi. p. 221. [312:2] Acosta: Hist. Indies, vol. ii. chs. xiii. and xiv. [312:3] According to the "_John_" narrator, Jesus ate no Paschal meal, but was captured the evening before Passover, and was crucified before the feast opened. According to the _Synoptics_, Jesus partook of the Paschal supper, was captured the first night of the feast, and executed on the first day thereof, which was on a Friday. If the _John_ narrator's account is true, that of the _Synoptics_ is not, or _vice versa_. [313:1] Mark, xiv. 13-16. [313:2] Gen. xxiv. [313:3] I. Kings, xvii. 8. [313:4] II. Kings, iv. 8. [313:5] Matt. xxvi. 18, 19. [313:6] For further observations on this subject, see Dr. Isaac M. Wise's "Martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth," a valuable little work, published at the office of the American Israelite, Cincinnati, Ohio. [315:1] See Gibbon's Rome, vol. v. pp. 399, 400. Calvin, after quoting _Matt._ xxvi. 26, 27, says: "There is no doubt that as soon as these words are added to the bread and the wine, the bread and the wine become the _true_ body and the _true_ blood of Christ, so that the substance of bread and wine is transmuted into the _true_ body and blood of Christ. He who denies this calls the omnipotence of Christ in question, and charges Christ himself with foolishness." (Calvin's Tracts, p. 214. Translated by Henry Beveridge, Edinburgh, 1851.) In other parts of his writings, Calvin seems to contradict this statement, and speaks of the bread and wine in the Eucharist as being _symbolical_. Gibbon evidently refers to the passage quoted above.